[ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin"

[clf99]

   getinfo shows

"moneysupply" : 15418603.13048927,
    "digsupply" : 818675.02325388,
    "stakesupply" : 644201.72641731,
    "activesupply" : 1462876.74967119,

What is the definition of activesupply.  Why is stakesupply so low if JD has 900k+ coins invested?  How long does it take an active coin to become staked?

[SuperClam]

   getinfo shows
"moneysupply" : 15418603.13048927,
    "digsupply" : 818675.02325388,
    "stakesupply" : 644201.72641731,
    "activesupply" : 1462876.74967119,

What is the definition of activesupply.  Why is stakesupply so low if JD has 900k+ coins invested?  How long does it take an active coin to become staked?

'digsupply' is the amount of CLAM "claimed".
'stakesupply' is the amount of CLAM created via staking.
'activesupply' is the 'stakesupply' + 'digsupply'.
'moneysupply' is the 'stakesupply' + 'digsupply' + those CLAM yet to be claimed.

[Chuck_Bartowski]

@SuperClam

Can we have a status when "finally" the Voting System will be announced?

Since you said this a couple of days ago...

i think it would help the community to see where we stand now and what is done for / against the current situation.

Greetings, Chuck

[goose20]

This imo is what was happening. I know what the digger has said. But initially his sizeable sells were causing the price to drop. Definitely caused an imbalance.

How do you know the sells were his?

Yep, good point. I don't know. Putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. My comments are my opinions based on my observations.

Like you said in your earlier post, could be just one or several coincidences.

[SuperClam]

@SuperClam
Can we have a status when "finally" the Voting System will be announced?
Since you said this a couple of days ago...
i think it would help the community to see where we stand now and what is done for / against the current situation.
Greetings, Chuck

Taking a bit longer than expected to get final kinks worked out of a collaboratively edited 'Google Doc' and a proper UI in the client to make creation and expression of 'petitions' as simple as possible so everyone can be included.

The Document is basically complete, with a few format and wording conflicts yet to be resolved between dooglus and I.
Kefkius is finishing up the petition specific UI, with some of the related UI updates already having been pushed to the repository.

Considering the influence of JD on the network at the moment, it is important that JD have a provable UI for user voting as well; would have to talk to dooglus concerning any progress in that arena.

Of course, the Thanksgiving holiday(in the U.S.) certainly didn't help.

[Hippie Tech]

It is true that if I had been more careful and not revealed my total dig amount, people would not have caught on so quickly, and I could probably have made more BTC from my CLAMs. But as dooglus said, I was adding 500k clams to a total supply of 800k clams. The price will go down no matter what. If no one knew how many I had and I sold it real slow, the price might have gone down much slower. I would have made a lot more money, and a lot more people would have lost money.

Remember that CLAM price had a huge run up before I started digging. Clam had only 1 use case, which is JustDice. The price at that time was not sustainable. I saw that and decided to cash out at that time. I'm sure others saw it too and cashed out. Waves and waves of selling is not because of me. Of course, I added to the selling pressure by putting in limit sells above market. But that doesn't really matter, because once Dooglus revealed my total dig amount, the market started to panic. The price fairly quickly dropped to the new "true" price given the new information out there. I did not increase my selling. Actually, my selling strategy has remained unchanged since the beginning.

Were you being just as careless when you let the crypto world know the who and where of how to access your vast crypto wealth ?

Only an uber noob would do that.

Ti les bvre Stavo ! O agios malakas !

edit

Thanks BIP38 seems like what I want. But there doesn't seem to be an easy tool to do the encryption or decryption yet. I don't run Windows.
And here's my dead man's switch: h t t p  :/ /www .deadmansswitch . net / (DO NOT TRUST !)

You were looking for the best encryption for your site right ?

Magas ?

[dooglus]

Were you being just as careless when you let the crypto world know the who and where of how to access your vast crypto wealth ?

here's my dead man's switch: h t t p  :/ /www .deadmansswitch . net / (DO NOT TRUST !)

As usual, you have misunderstood. He is saying that he USES deadmansswitch.net, not that he OWNS it.

[clf99]

btw i bought coffee from this guy http://cryptomercado.com/collections/all w/ clams (via email ultimately) and he claims it is in the mail

so, it's not just 'jd' anymore

[jaysabi]

It is true that if I had been more careful and not revealed my total dig amount, people would not have caught on so quickly, and I could probably have made more BTC from my CLAMs. But as dooglus said, I was adding 500k clams to a total supply of 800k clams. The price will go down no matter what. If no one knew how many I had and I sold it real slow, the price might have gone down much slower. I would have made a lot more money, and a lot more people would have lost money.

Remember that CLAM price had a huge run up before I started digging. Clam had only 1 use case, which is JustDice. The price at that time was not sustainable. I saw that and decided to cash out at that time. I'm sure others saw it too and cashed out. Waves and waves of selling is not because of me. Of course, I added to the selling pressure by putting in limit sells above market. But that doesn't really matter, because once Dooglus revealed my total dig amount, the market started to panic. The price fairly quickly dropped to the new "true" price given the new information out there. I did not increase my selling. Actually, my selling strategy has remained unchanged since the beginning.

I have nothing against you, you have your own interests to take care and CLAM rules allowed you to dig and sell whenever you want.

Revealing your existence and the number of coins you own, in addition to your selling pressure, has probably been crucial for this price dump.

But the main question is what now? Where do we go from now? Cause if this the whole plan, you digging and dumping, I m afraid you wont have anyone to sell to. Cause I know I would not place a single satoshi as a buy order knowing the price s gonna go only down. Also, only a noob would enter the market now and buy so new people re out too. I know some people re gonna say I m sharing negative marketing to CLAM but I would not like for these noobs who enter PoS for the first time to come here and lose their money without even having a chance to profit. On the other hand, I would like CLAM to go down, ever. I hope you see my point, what do we do now? Where does CLAM go from here?

Not to mention the fact I hope you do plan to keep some of your CLAM to stake and profit from PoS in the future as well. So, dev team, community, where do we go from here? What is the way out? Sitting and doing nothing isnt cause one does not need to be a genius to figure out where all this is gonna end if nothing s being done.

Nothing fundamental has changed about CLAMs. It's going now the same place it was going before, the rate it was getting there has just been accelerated.

[smooth]

My prediction.

As long as the Just-Dice site remains successful and popular and continues to use CLAMs, the price will recover quickly. The lower price means that people will gamble larger numbers of CLAMs (this is already somewhat apparent on the site stats), which means it will be profitable to buy CLAMs for the purpose of putting them in the bankroll to back that higher volume of play. Ultimately most of the active supply will find its way into the bankroll, as it has before.

I expect the price to recover to around 0.002-0.003 before long, which is a 100-200% return from the current price. This opportunity won't be lost on investors. Capital will flow in, absorb the digger's coins (if he even chooses to sell them here -- I wouldn't) and then it will be business as usual, including pushing for more adoption and decentralization of CLAMs beyond JD which can take the price sustainably beyond the 0.003 level.

There is no need to panic, no need to start gutting the USP of the coin, nor running petitions to gut the USP of the coin. Just relax and focus on adoption. The price will take care of itself. If you are in a position to invest here, consider my previous paragraph carefully.

Obviously do your own research, understand risks, and don't invest based on what some idiot on an Internet forum wrote.

Nothing fundamental has changed about CLAMs. It's going now the same place it was going before, the rate it was getting there has just been accelerated.

Somewhat agree. Unfortunately what did change is that the episode revealed that many in this community, including unfortunately the lead developers, are not committed to the unique attributes of the coin and willing to throw all that under the bus as soon as people start crying about the price. That is a fundamental negative. Ideally they would walk some of that back, but even so the damage is done.

[rocoro]

What is USP ?  Unique selling point?

[SuperClam]

What is USP ?  Unique selling point?

In college, I was taught 'proposition'; but, basically the same I suppose.

[SuperClam]

...
Unfortunately what did change is that the episode revealed that many in this community, including unfortunately the lead developers, are not committed to the unique attributes of the coin and willing to throw all that under the bus as soon as people start crying about the price. That is a fundamental negative. Ideally they would walk some of that back, but even so the damage is done.

I disagree - though I am obviously a bit biased on this issue

There have been talks between xploited and I for months concerning distributed governance.
Likely at least since the idea of larger blocks came up as a widely debated issue in the BTC network.

The process we are preparing is essentially a means to establish support in the same way one would establish support for a soft-fork.

The difference is that our system will allow anyone to initiate the process, anyone to vote according to their stake in the network and have the data available before any development effort is spent on a proposal.
I believe this is a net boon for the network, and hence there is nothing to 'walk back'.


This a double-edged sword.

For instance: consider the conversation around privacy in the BTC network.
Getting such a change implemented into the BTC codebase may very well be difficult given the variety of parties, including governmental bodies, with interests in the network.

This would allow the users of CLAM, purely on their own initiative, to evangelize for such a change and prove the network supports it.

At that point, it does not matter what 'dev team' issues the update/code.
Support has been provably demonstrated, with no permission need.
With support proven, the success of the forking change can be considered more likely.

That is quite important, in my honest opinion.
It adds resilience.
It adds decentralization of development, in a fashion, though crippled at the moment with such a small community.

[dooglus]

I disagree - though I am obviously a bit biased on this issue

There have been talks between xploited and I for months concerning distributed governance.

Hey, could you get your somewhat biased ass into the IRC channel to continue talking about it?

Ta.

[smooth]

The difference is that our system will allow anyone to initiate the process, anyone to vote according to their stake in the network and have the data available before any development effort is spent on a proposal.
I believe this is a net boon for the network, and hence there is nothing to 'walk back'.

What I believe strongly should be walked back is the discussion about taxing or stopping digging, and especially the perceived (and in some cases quite explicit) support the idea has received from the de facto leaders of the community. It was a horrible mistake to put the very core of the design of the coin on the table in response to market fluctuations, and that is most certainly what happened. It makes the coin and the community and leadership look weak and fragile, not to mention the horrible precedent of even talking about going after coins that for two years have been advertised as something people "already own".

The on-chain petition system is a mixed bag, we could argue positives and negatives in the abstract, and you can claim it has nothing to do with digging or The Digger, and how you discussed it with xploited long ago, but the recent history has now (though perhaps somewhat unintentionally and maybe even unfairly) tainted it as part of the Great 2015 Digger Panic.

These are my options on the merits of the idea (especially on pushing it out now on at apparently accelerated pace), but they are also my opinions on what has impaired the market sentiment and caused a 90% price decline rather than something closer to the 40% decrease that the numerical size of the new supply would imply. 

[smooth]

What is USP ?  Unique selling point?

In college, I was taught 'proposition'; but, basically the same I suppose.

The phrases are interchangeable:

A USP could be thought of as “what you have that competitors don’t.”
Here are a few famous examples of USPs:

Avis’ “We’re only number two. We try harder” campaign.
Domino’s “30 minutes or it’s free” promise.
FedEx’s “When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.”
Southwest’s claim to be the lowest-priced airline.

[SuperClam]

The difference is that our system will allow anyone to initiate the process, anyone to vote according to their stake in the network and have the data available before any development effort is spent on a proposal.
I believe this is a net boon for the network, and hence there is nothing to 'walk back'.

What I believe strongly should be walked back is the discussion about taxing or stopping digging, and especially the perceived (and in some cases quite explicit) support the idea has received from the de facto leaders of the community. It was a horrible mistake to put the very core of the design of the coin on the table in response to market fluctuations, and that is most certainly what happened. It makes the coin and the community and leadership look weak and fragile, not to mention the horrible precedent of even talking about going after coins that for two years have been advertised as something people "already own".
The on-chain petition system is a mixed bag, we could argue positives and negatives in the abstract, and you can claim it has nothing to do with digging or The Digger, and how you discussed it with xploited long ago, but the recent history has now (though perhaps somewhat unintentionally and maybe even unfairly) tainted it as part of the Great 2015 Digger Panic.
These are my options on the merits of the idea (especially on pushing it out now on at apparently accelerated pace), but they are also my opinions on what has impaired the market sentiment and caused a 90% price decline rather than something closer to the 40% decrease that the numerical size of the new supply would imply.  

I make it a point to attempt to play devil's advocate for ideas which are suggested, such as the idea to require 'dig' outputs to be staked to be claimed.

The only idea 'explicitly' supported by me personally was also suggested and brainstormed out well before the digger, despite appearances.
I am referring to various ideas surrounding fixing the fee structure - specifically those which include the element of time/blocks.

EDIT:
For what it's worth, I personally feel that CLAM is fine without removing 'digs'.
Still think the dynamic fee structure should be implemented eventually, though for reasons of DDoS/Bloat, sustainability and other reasons.
We will see what how the network feels about it.

[thefix]

Somewhat agree. Unfortunately what did change is that the episode revealed that many in this community, including unfortunately the lead developers, are not committed to the unique attributes of the coin and willing to throw all that under the bus as soon as people start crying about the price. That is a fundamental negative. Ideally they would walk some of that back, but even so the damage is done.

What unique attributes are the developers not committed to?

[rocoro]

What is the largest amount that is safe to split up using:

Code:

sendtoaddress theaddressyoursplittingto '{"count":c,"amount":a}'

Its fine to do a large amount at one time?  Also, those will all stake as separate outputs?

Is it better to do this between separate wallet on separate computers?   
In other words, what if on the same wallet / machine I add more coins at a later date, then I try to do the same thing, will it pull from the other outputs and mess things up?

Thanks.

[dooglus]

Somewhat agree. Unfortunately what did change is that the episode revealed that many in this community, including unfortunately the lead developers, are not committed to the unique attributes of the coin and willing to throw all that under the bus as soon as people start crying about the price. That is a fundamental negative. Ideally they would walk some of that back, but even so the damage is done.

What unique attributes are the developers not committed to?

He's referring to the developers being open to the idea of changing the consensus rules to change the initial distribution.

The initial distribution was (is?) unique.